Cheesecake

Let's take a trip in our time machines back to when we were having this exact conversation about the Viney FS pick. Many Demonlanders were spouting this same paranoid argument. Worrying that other teams were lining up to destroy our plans of getting him in the second round. That they were all prepared to forego their own needs and risk restricting their uber valuable first round pick to just one player, instead of having free reign to pick whoever the best player to fall to their pick was. It makes no sense. Why would any team lock themselves into a borderline decision, take the risk of getting egg on their faces and facing a shitestorm of supporter anger, just to peeve another lowly team. They wouldn't. Hence, they didn't. (And please, let's not start on the rubbish rumours of secret deals to ensure we got him. Boulderdash.) The reality is that no team will ever nominate a FS selection, unless they are >99% sure that absolutely no one else on their radar for that pick could possibly ever still be available, given every possible combination of draft orders. This effectively means that St Kilda won't nominate him unless they rank him significantly above the 19th best option. ... TheEvil1 has nailed it here. To think otherwise is to deny common sense and past experience.

The other thing of note is the daylight (~20%) between Jetta and McDonald in points per game. I think this is a pretty accurate reflection of reality. I don't think too many would argue that these top 6 were the standout players for the Dees this year.

And here, for your viewing pleasure, are the results of the 'Cheesie'. It's basically the Bluey, but based on points per game played, rather than total points. The big movers are Daniel Cross (moves from 5 to 2 - wow), Neville Jetta (9 to 6 - expected), Jake Spencer (24 to 12 - probably unexpected), and Colin Garland (19 to 14). Player - Bluey Pts - Games Played - Points per game - Position in Bluey - Position in Cheesie Nathan Jones --- 311 --- 22 --- 14.14 --- 1 --- 1 Daniel Cross --- 238 --- 17 --- 14.00 --- 5 --- 2 Dom Tyson --- 293 --- 22 --- 13.32 --- 2 --- 3 Bernie Vince --- 270 --- 22 --- 12.27 --- 3 --- 4 Lynden Dunn --- 264 --- 22 --- 12.00 --- 4 --- 5 Neville Jetta --- 191 --- 16 --- 11.94 --- 9 --- 6 Tom McDonald --- 212 --- 21 --- 10.10 --- 7 --- 7 Jeremy Howe --- 220 --- 22 --- 10.00 --- 6 --- 8 James Frawley --- 192 --- 21 --- 9.14 --- 8 --- 9 Jack Viney --- 180 --- 20 --- 9.00 --- 11 --- 10 Jack Watts --- 185 --- 22 --- 8.41 --- 10 --- 11 Jake Spencer --- 36 --- 5 --- 7.20 --- 24 --- 12 Jack Grimes --- 124 --- 18 --- 6.89 --- 14 --- 13 Colin Garland --- 95 --- 14 --- 6.79 --- 19 --- 14 Rohan Bail --- 139 --- 21 --- 6.62 --- 12 --- 15 Matt Jones --- 129 --- 20 --- 6.45 --- 13 --- 16 Mark Jamar --- 109 --- 17 --- 6.41 --- 17 --- 17 Dean Terlich --- 96 --- 15 --- 6.40 --- 18 --- 18 Chris Dawes --- 113 --- 18 --- 6.28 --- 16 --- 19 Cameron Pedersen --- 118 --- 19 --- 6.21 --- 15 --- 20 Jordie McKenzie --- 49 --- 9 --- 5.44 --- 23 --- 21 Max Gawn --- 49 --- 9 --- 5.44 --- 23 --- 22 Dean Kent --- 64 --- 13 --- 4.92 --- 20 --- 23 Alex Georgiou --- 34 --- 7 --- 4.86 --- 25 --- 24 Jimmy Toumpas --- 17 --- 4 --- 4.25 --- 30 --- 25 Jay Kennedy-Harris --- 56 --- 14 --- 4.00 --- 21 --- 26 Jack Trengove --- 8 --- 2 --- 4.00 --- 33 --- 27 Viv Michie --- 22 --- 6 --- 3.67 --- 28 --- 28 Aidan Riley --- 30 --- 9 --- 3.33 --- 26 --- 29 Shannon Byrnes --- 18 --- 6 --- 3.00 --- 29 --- 30 Luke Tapscott --- 8 --- 3 --- 2.67 --- 33 --- 31 Jack Fitzpatrick --- 12 --- 5 --- 2.40 --- 31 --- 32 Christian Salem --- 27 --- 12 --- 2.25 --- 27 --- 33 Dom Barry --- 3 --- 5 --- 0.60 --- 34 --- 34

Whilst the Grimes looks right (and is a monty to be on there, anyway), and the Viney is a cert, am I the only one who thinks the 'Trengove' silhouette looks a little like Howe? Are we in for a surprise?

I will be looking very keenly to the NAB Cup (and the first couple of rounds this season) for an indication of how far we've come since last year. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're going to say about the NAB Cup; rested stars, exposing youth, not peaking too early etc etc. And, generally, I agree in principle. BUT .. throughout our recent down years, I've seen the same old pattern; we get embarrassed in the NAB*, we get embarrassed in the first few rounds, then we turn up the embarrassment levels for the season proper. We need to show something during the NAB, and we need to convincingly beat Port. We don't, and put your money on another bottom four finish. * excluding the odd exception, like beating the Pies at Etihad last year

Can't agree entirely, Jose. I think he is hard, generally goes when it is his turn, and does have excellent pace. Also, he is in the top few players in our team for creating run and carry, breaking away from contested situations. Agree about his other deficiencies, though. I think he is still just in our best 22, but will have to improve his skills, particularly kicking and execution of defensive pressure, if he is to stay there as the team improves.

This sucks. Really sucks. Would have to be one of my most respected guys at the club. He hasn't been graced with supreme natural talents or any good luck, but he's had the intestinal fortitude to get everything out of himself that he can. You just have to respect a guy like that.

Let's not forget the circumstance that led to Scully's departure were basically a 'perfect storm' that is incredibly unlikely to reoccur. The unique combination of circumstances: - GWS's entry in to the comp, with their outrageous financial concessions - Scully's psychology - that of an emotionally disconnected automaton - Scully's influences - having Augustus Gloop for a father - Melbourne's rebuilding position - where decisions where made for perceived long term success, but at short term detriment to the vibe around the club created an environment where Scully leaving was almost an inevitability. This is very unlikely to be repeated with Hogan. Relax folks.

If you are in the minority, you shouldn't be. I defy anyone here to re-watch the games of '12, and then try and argue that Joel's disposal (and to a slightly lesser degree, his reliability) didn't dramatically improve throughout the second half of the season. He's as hard as a cat's head, rarely takes a backward step, works his arse off, and has clearly worked on improving his weaknesses. Any wonder Neeld thinks he's alright? Sure, he will most likely be overtaken in time, as our youth improve, but for now I'm more than happy to see him on the list. Even if just for depth.

Nah, that's Neeldy's freakishly long left arm.

For me personally, this is the best news to come from this announcement; that there must be hope for Bartram's knee. No one else on the list can play his role (maybe Bail, at a stretch). He's fast, tough, accountable and can lock down on a opposition goal sneak or run with a hardrunning midfielder. He can also break lines. (He just needs to err towards feeding it off (to Watts, Strauss etc) rather than trying to hit a target up forward himself).

Plenty of similarities between this and Scully-gate. Narcissistic Gen Y's with overblown feelings of entitlement, and the greedy parents who made them that way. Just add money-grubbing people managers and you have a recipe for this sort of thing.

A reverse Prendergast?

Not so sure about that. If it's true that he is on about $800K, which is what I seem to recall the media saying, then Cloke is worth every penny they pay him. Agree that something probably has to give within their cap though.

Why isn't Mitch on our banner? What with the extra room that's been created recently, can we slide him in somewhere? Maybe next to Jonesy there? As for Mitch Banner .. not too familiar with his work.

Ha ha. Awesome! Looks like he's ours then.

Are we a major Melbourne-based club??

Great minds ...

Agree. The 3rd man up is an important role in today's footy, given the way most teams defend space, then try and close down the chosen option. And Rivers did it bloody well. Every team should have a Rivers/Gibson/Maxwell type. We'll miss Rivers. Jacky boy, come on down.

It's time for Jack Watts to step up as general of the backline, in my opinion. He showed this year that he can play the Rivers role. Reads the play well. Knows when to leave his man and become the third man up.Just needs to develop Riv's bravery and spoiling ability, and we'll have a faster, taller Rivers with better disposal, who can set up play better.

Whilst I totally agree with the crux of your argument about the 'welfare mentality', I really don't think that posters who want JV in the second round or don't think we should pick him at 3 unless we actually value him third best (or better) in the draft are necessarily exhibiting this mentality. If he is not rated top 3, and we are forced to pick him there because another team is able to use of the vagaries of the father-son system against us, then what some have said here is true; we are going to be the first team ever to be disadvantaged by our own father-son pick in the draft! Fact! (and I'm not talking about what JV might end up being. Nobody knows that for sure. I'm saying, if he is rated 5 - 8 now (hypothetical, I know, but a reasonably accurate interpretation of everything that's been written about him by those who should know) and we pick him at 3, we are paying slightly overs). The fact that we would be paying slightly overs for a player that, historically speaking and by the nature and intention of the rule under which we are getting him, we should be getting at unders, is just further salt in the wound. No welfare mentality there. Just a legitimate gripe! Even in this very same draft, another team is paying well-unders for a future father-son gun (Daniher). Imagine if the Bombers finished last and were forced to take him at pick 1, when he is generally rated around pick 2-5. They would be having the same conversation on BomberBlitz. They'd be livid that they aren't getting him in the second round. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that the have a welfare mentality over there.

Well done, Jimmi. You've, at best, misrepresented what I posted, and, at worst, ignored it completely. Then you've used your response to launch a sarcastic tantrum as part of some argument we are not even having. Railing against my pushing of a "case for our B- to D grade spudleys that comprise 90% of our list" when I simply stated that turning over up to 19 players in one off-season might be "a bit of overkill" and suggested seven of them that we should keep for balance. Some seriously fine shadow boxing there. Do you feel better now?

You've listed 19 players (10 'will/should' and 9 'may'). Might be a bit of overkill there. Personally, I think Dunn, and particularly Macdonald, are good depth, and maintain some much needed experience (Joel especially provides leadership in the example he provides to the youth as far as competitiveness, attitude, and getting the best out of oneself goes). They are keepers, for now. Gysberts, Martin and Strauss represent potential in areas that we are light on that have not yet exhausted a reasonable chance to develop, in my opinion. Short contracts. Getting rid of Rivers or Sylvia is just plain stupidity. We are seriously lacking experience and class. Only get rid of these players if we replace them the same or more experience and class. Davey and Barts should only go if injury will prevent them from returning to their best.

Fair point. Picking out one game to make a point is pretty poor. I agree. I guess that Dees Nutz should then thank you, because by assessing his whole season's stats, you've helped back up his argument. Excuse me for questioning whether pointing out the following makes for the best rebuttal to his argument you could have made - in his uninterrupted season of games he had - only 1 with over 20 possessions - 40% of games with 13 or less possessions - the now infamous 3 possession game - a season average of 15. You're funny. He he.

What's the point you are making with 2. Held to 3 possessions in R23 (just as Dees Nutz says) and averaging 15 per game. R23 Adelaide 1 2 3 R22 Carlton 8 3 11 R21 Hawthorn 4 9 13 R20 GWS Giants 8 8 16 R19 Melbourne 8 3 11 R18 Sydney 9 7 16 R17 Brisbane Lions 6 7 13 R16 Richmond 10 5 15 R15 Geelong 11 7 18 R14 West Coast 6 4 10 R12 North Melbourne 10 3 13 R11 St Kilda 9 11 20 R10 Collingwood 6 10 16 R9 Port Adelaide 8 12 20 R8 Western Bulldogs 13 14 27 R7 GWS Giants 11 8 19 R6 Fremantle 11 5 16 R5 North Melbourne 5 8 13 R4 Brisbane Lions 10 10 20 R3 Essendon 11 5 16 R2 St Kilda 7 5 12 R1 Adelaide 12 4 16 Average disposals 15.18182